Can the government drill for oil or is it a oil company only thing?
From an economic POV, even if new drilling never actually yields a single drop of oil, just the threat of competition should send a sobering msg to OPEC members that they’d better: a) Keep their prices stable; and b) Deal more effectively with their homegrown crazies, or we’ll continue to look for alternatives.
I still believe, as others do, that the best chance we have at peace is to loosen our short-term dependence on Middle Eastern oil while fervently developing other energy technologies. No foreign presence can stifle terror networks more convincingly than they can and will on their own, should they be sufficiently motivated. I know of no better motivation than money.
So good for you, President Obama.
While we’re at it, I hope he goes a step further and offers bigger, better incentives for American auto companies to get moving on an alternative-energy, mass-produced car. First they all need to agree on the best path, be it solar, hybrid, natural gas, compressed air, whatever. Once they agree on the direction, the feds can put people to work changing our infrastructure while the car companies work on developing and refining the cars. Developing alternative energy cars would serve many purposes: 1) reduce our dependence on oil; 2) reduce the amount of $ we put into the hands of people who dislike us: 3) reduce greenhouse gases; and 4)create sorely needed jobs to convert to this new platform.
Dream big or don’t dream at all, baby.
The government could go into the oil business but that would be…what’s the word…it’s on the tip of my tongue…starts with “S”…
Far better to just nationalize the oil businesses we’ve got.
That way we’d keep drilling expertise instead of having to compete for it.
Someone, maybe Obama, needs to work out a five year plan. 
Sorry if I was not clear. I was not suggesting that Obama was going to nationalize the oil industry. My point is that the very people who were so angry about offshore drilling under the Bush administration seem to welcome this idea. If someone believes that offshore drilling will harm the environment in order to extract something that will help the economy minimally in 5-10 years then why would this same person think this is a good idea? Sure, people get put to work…maybe fairly soon…but that is really the only benefit in the short term. When the economy rebounds won’t these same people be opposed to the very drilling they supported during the recession? Won’t there be demands to stop destroying the environment for a resource that will have no effect on global supply or price? It just seems contradictory to me.
Not really, I was being a wise guy. The winky face was meant as a “wink nod say no more” thing.
I didn’t like this when the Republican wanted to do it and I like it even less when a Democrat wants to. At least I know to expect it from Republicans. He isn’t going to get a thing out of this from the right and he’s irritating his base. I suppose we’ll see if the opinion gain he gets from the middle balances out what he loses on the left. It’s not the worst thing in the world but it’s definitely disappointing.
You know, this actually isn’t a bad argument - we’re going to purchase the oil anyway, so why not drill it here?
Personally, I’d much rather they drill in Alaska than off Florida, for rather obvious reasons, but I am not particularly opposed to increased oil production in the US. I am concerned about the effect of additional Gulf oil spillage on fish stocks, though.
The other thing is that increasing oil production needs to come with an increased tax on gasoline. It should be pretty obvious by now that $4 gas was a good thing - it shocked (or priced) many Americans into giving up their Hummers - and I think a gasoline floor will do much to promote fuel efficiency.
I don’t really care if “the base” (or the rest of the base, if I’m part of the base) don’t like it. If it is limited in scope and advances a broader energy strategy that will decrease the country’s dependence on foreign oil whilst supporting the development of other, greener forms of energy for the longer term, I’m for it. If it’s just drilling because we want more oil, then I’m not.
Its a bit like heroin. A lot, actually. America is addicted to lavish energy use. So if you lower the cost of energy, you will do very little to actually discourage such addiction. On the other hand, the addict is less likely to mug Venezuela to support his habit.
America is Keith Richards, without the badass guitar chops.
Yeah, but we carry our 200+ years a lot better than he does his.
Wait, what do you mean he’s only 66?!
Ooh…never mind. Yeah, we’re doing a LOT better than Keith Richards…
Where We Are Now ----------------------------------> Whatever The Answer Is
Where we are now is dependent upon a lot of fossil fuels that pollute and are cheap in the short run, but very expensive in the long run. We need to transition away from that towards whatever the answer is. The answer is that oasis of clean, renewable energy. Along the way, we have to pull away from doing things the way we have. We spend a billion dollars a day on oil. We give a billion dollars, in some cases, to governments that only like us because we’re giving them a whole lot of cash. We should move towards that future point immediately. We spend lots of time, effort, and money to keep stuff running, and should, instead, be investing that in ourselves, through research and development and renewable energies. The jobs to gain from this aren’t just the actual people making the parts or the scientists developing new photo voltaic cells. The jobs to gain are also in the parts-suppliers to these industries and in the businesses that will be able to run (better) because people will be employed and be able to buy their goods.
Encourage conservation, lean on renewables, work towards the end result.
Oh yeah, save the planet as a side effect, too.
I hope you guys realize the fundamnental contradiction of on the one hand wanting to use cap and trade to drive up the cost of fossil fuels so that demand is limited, while simultaneously supporting an increase in supply which will bring down prices.
The cynic in me would say that this is just a good way for the government to raise more money for itself and gain more control over industry.
I’m on record in the past as opposing drilling in ANWR on the grounds that it’s just about the only way the U.S. can restrict the world supply of oil and help keep prices higher, and that’s a much better way of limiting carbon emissions than localized taxation or trying to get an impossible global agreement. In addition, ANWR and other undrilled oil fields provide a natural strategic petroleum reserve, which might not be a bad thing to have.
The Obama administration’s plans are fundamentally contradictory - expanding supply has the opposite effect of cap and trade. But of course, the devil is in the details. Again, the cynic in me would say that this was a pre-emptory strike - a way to get the right to say, “oh, Obama is trying to meet us halfway”, and this will be used as ammunition in the upcoming fight over cap-and-trade. And in the end, the details of the approval of new drilling will turn out to show that it only approves it in areas that are already drilled out or where the expected reserves are actually rather small. In other words, it’s just a political smokescreen.
Because it might be better to use up the other guys’ oil first so we’ll be the only ones who have it?
Sam, there’s no “fundamental contradiction” between increasing supply and decreasing demand, as you know. :dubious: Even if they *were *simultaneous, which you also know they won’t be. Kindly drop the “anything a Democrat does must be bad” act, okay? Thanks.
Are you suggesting that Obama is engaging in politics! Politics? Me golden idol is tarnished…
If you think drilling in the ANWR would have a significant effect on global oil prices you’re mistaken. It would certainly create a localized drop in prices in the US and Canada, but certainly no more than we could offset with a small hike in gasoline taxes.
And not for another ten years or so.
We ought to loosen a lot of regulation regarding drilling and expand drilling oppourtunities. Liberals always complain about how we support Saudi Arabia. Well this is the best way to get them off our backs. Of course there are some (YogSothoth) who support it when Obama does something but not when Bush did it because of some rubbish paranoid conspiracy theory reason.
Unintended consequences, volume XIII:
Consider the present state of the Middle East. Now consider what it will be like when the local economies collapse after the price of oil drops.
How’s that vastly different? Also, nobody’s going to turn off the oil spigot overnight.